The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...
Full Story

<quoted text>Exactly where in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark use the words "Natural Born Citizen"?Your link must be taken from the actual Supreme Court Decision!

The Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649 (1898))the court used the term "natural-born citizen" seven times.

1. The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." Id at 654

2...."no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." Id at 654

3. In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Id at 655

4. In Dred Scott v. Sandford,(1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said: "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language,`a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Id at 662

5. In United States v. Rhodes,(1866) Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Id at 662

6. In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been esident in the United States. Id at 672-673

7. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Id at 680

By the way, the dissent used the term "natural-born citizen" six times.

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:I suspect this homeless man has some mental issues and I am not sure what the correct answer is. Because of LIBERAL laws you can not lockup someone to protect themselves from themselves.Homeless man grateful for boots, but barefoot againBy Dylan Stableford, Yahoo! News | The Lookout –The homeless man who was photographed in being given a pair of boots by a New York City police officer in Times Square on a bitterly cold night last month was spotted on the Upper West Side on Sunday. And he was once again barefoot."Those shoes are hidden," Jeffrey Hillman, the 54-year-old homeless man, told the New York Times. "They are worth a lot of money--I could lose my life."http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/nypd-home ...<quoted text>Again, where did I mention Obama? You can not help everyone. Remember, it was you Liberals that released all the semi-crazy people from mental hospitals and then blamed Ronald Reagan for closing "unused" mental hospitals.

Pre-empting, just pre-empting, Rogue. Seeing as all and any misfortune can be attributed to Obama, what the hell, why not this one? Oh, DJIA's down 41 pts now. Obama again. Who's going to stop this bad man?

“As a result of the adoption of the amendment, whatever differences existed between statesmen and jurists on the general subject prior to the War Between the States was put to rest, and it may now be stated as an established rule that every person born within the United States (except in the case of children of ambassadors, etc.), whether born of parents who are themselves citizens of the United States or of foreign parents, is a citizen of the United States.” Perkins v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 411 (App.D.C. 1938), modified and affirmed, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

"Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the 'general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,'says:Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent.... "

...

"And he elsewhere says:And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary.... Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land."

Excerpted from US v. Ark:"Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the 'general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,'says:Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent.... "..."And he elsewhere says:And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary.... Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land."

Chief Justice Fuller who wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark lamented that Wong Kim Ark could run for the office of the President when he observed:

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to EVERYBODY BORN within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the CHILDREN OF FOREIGNERS, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, WERE ELIGIBLE TO THE PRESIDENCY, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169, U.S. 649, 715 (1898)(C.J. Fuller, dissenting)(emphasis added)

As such, even the DISSENT in Wong Kim Ark acknowledged that the majority's holding would allow Wong Kim Ark to be eligible to the presidency

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” –James Madison

“That a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term ‘citizenship.’” Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut. Six Book 167 (1795).

“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822).

Yup, even in Kentucky they[1] understood a natural born citizen is a person born in the United States, even if the parents were aliens.

Imagine this happening to your son. Fortunately the family received a settlement of $8.25M. I wonder how much they would have received if this case was presented to a jury. Even some of the jail employees testified this young man was murdered and Arpaio doesn’t think his officers did anything wrong.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2012The Birthers are here to stay!- Polls show "Birthers" are not a fringe grouphttp://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/10/the...Many of the national opinion polls show that a large segment of the citizens still have questions about Obama’s questionable history, and they still want answers! In a July 2012 poll 45% of the general public and 69% of Republicans have doubts about Obama’s birthplace. Many voters have been influenced away from voting for Obama because of the obvious cover up of Obama’s past. Just type these search words into Google and see for yourself: obama eligible poll.http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/07/evi...Flashback: Poll: 46% Doubt Obama’s EligibilityJuly 13, 2012 <<---<<<Over 140 million Americans either believe Barack Obama is ineligible or doubt Obama is eligible, a WND/Wenzell poll found. The scientific telephone survey poll was taken March 10-13, 2012 and has a margin of error of 3.72 percentage points.The poll found a whopping 29.8% believe Obama is ineligible. Add another 16% who have their doubts. That equals 46% who doubt Obama’s eligibility, nearly a majority of Americans.http://www.usanewsfirst.com/2012/07/13/poll-4...

Do they happened to mention how many of those polled laughed and hung up when asked that question?

“To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822).

Exceptions are mostly introduced by treaty regulations?

How can that be?

Play Justice Dale has ruled that US sovereignty depends upon treaty regulations.

My goodness! Those dastardly satanic pinko commie Kentucky judges were at it in 1822!

Fox News Flash, The State of New York is asking our Federal Government for ....$42 BILLION for Hurricane Sandy disaster relief! Ah, New Orleans got only $30 BILLION and they had far worse damage than Sandy caused NYC!!!Now, wait for the other states to put their hands out.

And a few years after Hurricane Katrina, we had the fraud investigations.

<quoted text>Pre-empting, just pre-empting, Rogue. Seeing as all and any misfortune can be attributed to Obama, what the hell, why not this one? Oh, DJIA's down 41 pts now. Obama again. Who's going to stop this bad man?

The REPUBLICAN in Congress can! I am not sure if they have the gonads to stop him but the House does have the power.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.